Sorry, using "gsc" was a local configuration change. Most systems would use
"gs" by default.
(te)tex perl scripts have been handled 2 ways:
1. put the script directly in /usr/bin and remove the .pl extension, e.g.,
epstopdf
2. put the script in /usr/share/texmf/scripts/... and use a generic
cover script (such as /usr/bin/texexec) which uses kpathsea to locate
the .pl script.
The latter does, in principle, make it easier for users to install updates
to /usr/local/texmf/scripts or $HOME/texmf/scripts. This issue is particularly
accute for ConTeXt, which relies on a large collection of perl and ruby scripts,
and which is updated early and often, which explains why method 2 is currently
used for ConTeXt scripts.
Now that tetex is not being maintained by the author, Thomas Esser, the role of
"canonical" TeX distribution seems likely to fall on TeX Live, which aims to
support a wider range of operating systems, including those where the unix "#!
program" mechanism is not available (e.g., win32) so method 2 above must be
used. Thus the "canonical" location for the scripts will be in the texmf tree,
so mechanism 2 should be the norm. This also makes it feasible to share texmf
trees. TeX may be unique in that many sites have a texmf tree on a unix or
linux server and share it across unix+linux (via NFS) and Win32 (via samba).